Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement for details.

Stephen Pickford (London - Dec 2010)

1.
Session 3: Policy Tools to Sustain a Cooperative AgendaThe G20 Mutual Assessment Process as a case study in policy coordinationStephen PickfordThe MAP was initiated at the Pittsburgh Summit, as a response to the particularcircumstances of the time: the global economy was showing the first signs of starting toemerge from the global financial crisis; but there were big disagreements about how quickly(and when) to start unwinding the exceptional fiscal and monetary support; and there werestill real risks of a reversion to protectionism.It also reflected dissatisfaction with the ‘standard’ instruments of IMF surveillance, whichsuffered from a perceived lack of even-handedness and independence. There were alsoquestions about the IMF’s model for policy advice. And the IMF was seen as lacking intraction on countries’ policies.It is worth comparing and contrasting the MAP with the last serious attempt at globalcoordination to address imbalances: the IMF’s ‘multilateral consultation’ in the mid-2000s(which was generally seen as a failure – indeed some of the features of the MAP weredeliberately designed differently from the MC).There are differences (and some similarities) across a number of dimensions: • Country coverage • Policy coverage • Country ownership • IMF involvement • Peer review vs surveillance • TransparencyA preliminary judgement: • The MC had very limited impact on the policies of the countries involved in the process • The MAP has, at the very least, put the main issues on the table • Traditional alliances have not carried across to the MAP process • The Seoul Summit produced some commitments from countries (though time will tell how far they are adhered to) • Seoul also pledged a development and intensification of the process (MAP 2.0).